Re: layout of web pages

[Nicolás Lichtmaier]

> Exactly.  In fact, Netscape's handling of heading and paragraphs is
> atrocious.  Maybe it inherited the foolishness from Mosaic - I can't
> remember.  The point, anyway, is that  should be thought of as 'put space
> here'.
> 
> Personally, I think we should aim for properly paired ... tags in
> pages we produce.  Mine do, mostly.

 There's absolutelly no reason for doing so. You aren't following the
stamdard more closely with that.

 What should only be needed is to use  at the start of paragraphs and not
at the end, as many people do.

Re: layout of web pages

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"Nicolás" == Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 >> Personally, I think we should aim for properly paired ... tags in
 >> pages we produce.  Mine do, mostly.

 Nicolás> There's absolutelly no reason for doing so. You aren't
 Nicolás> following the stamdard more closely with that.

Oh yes, there is a reason. Using omittags to the fullest extent,
 one may indeed get rid of a lot of markup, but then as a human, I get
 confused (unless I happen to be very familair with the DTD). I, too,
 tend not to omit tags at all (after all, that is not a hardship for
 me, since I have an intelligent editor). It also makes the
 indentation prettier (and easier to scan) that way, for humans.

manoj

--
 As part of the conversion, computer specialists rewrote 1,500
 programs; a process that traditionally requires some debugging. USA
 Today, referring to the Internal Revenue Service conversion to a new
 computer system.
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Re: layout of web pages

[Nicolás Lichtmaier]

>> There's absolutelly no reason for doing so. You aren't
>> following the stamdard more closely with that.
> Oh yes, there is a reason. Using omittags to the fullest extent,
> one may indeed get rid of a lot of markup, but then as a human, I get
> confused (unless I happen to be very familair with the DTD). I, too,
> tend not to omit tags at all (after all, that is not a hardship for
> me, since I have an intelligent editor). It also makes the
> indentation prettier (and easier to scan) that way, for humans.

 But that is completelly subjective (is that an English word?). I personally
find it nicer to have as little markup as posible (while still having a
perfectly DTD compliant document) and a good identation =).

Re: layout of web pages

[Dirk Niemeyer]

We should also consider using "height=xxx" and "width=xxx" for the IMG
tag 
as this makes rendering easier for the browsers. I always sit in front
of 
an empty display for a while and the browser tells me it is loading x kb
of 
this and y kb of that and finally everything pops up.

Using the additional info on IMG the text comes first and then the
graphics 
can come in.

-- 
Dirk Niemeyer   | "The number of UNIX installations
has 
Daimler-Benz Aerospace Airbus GmbH  |  grown to 10, with more expected."
Fon: +49 40 7437 3968   | -- The UNIX Programmer's Manual, 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |2nd Edition, June, 1972

Re: layout of web pages

[Jules Bean]

--On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 2:47 am -0300 "Nicolás Lichtmaier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>> There's absolutelly no reason for doing so. You aren't
>>> following the stamdard more closely with that.
>> Oh yes, there is a reason. Using omittags to the fullest extent,
>> one may indeed get rid of a lot of markup, but then as a human, I get
>> confused (unless I happen to be very familair with the DTD). I, too,
>> tend not to omit tags at all (after all, that is not a hardship for
>> me, since I have an intelligent editor). It also makes the
>> indentation prettier (and easier to scan) that way, for humans.
>
>  But that is completelly subjective (is that an English word?). I
personally
> find it nicer to have as little markup as posible (while still having a
> perfectly DTD compliant document) and a good identation =).

The specific problem with the  tags is that many people misunderstand
them, and many browsers appear to interpret  tags the way that people
expect them to work (i.e. put some space here) rather than the way they
should work.

For this reason, I recommend the paired form, since that is completely
clear.

Of course, I do use omit tags myself - I almost always omit  on short
lists, and  in tables.  Maybe we need a policy on this.  Maybe it
doesn't matter :-)

Jules


/+---+-\
|  Jelibean aka  | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  6 Evelyn Rd|
|  Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | [EMAIL PROTECTED]|  TW9 2TF *UK*   |
++---+-+
|  Debian GNU/Linux - "Microsoft *does* have a year 2000 problem - |
|  and we're it!" (paraphrased from IRC)   |
\--/

Re: layout of web pages

[Jules Bean]

--On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 10:40 am +0200 "Dirk Niemeyer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

> We should also consider using "height=xxx" and "width=xxx" for the IMG
> tag 
> as this makes rendering easier for the browsers. I always sit in front
> of 
> an empty display for a while and the browser tells me it is loading x kb
> of 
> this and y kb of that and finally everything pops up.
> 
> Using the additional info on IMG the text comes first and then the
> graphics 
> can come in.
> 

Hmm... you're right.

WML can do this automatically, in fact, IIRC.  Presumably, it doesn't for us
since the IMG files don't exist when the wml is run.

Jules

/+---+-\
|  Jelibean aka  | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  6 Evelyn Rd|
|  Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | [EMAIL PROTECTED]|  TW9 2TF *UK*   |
++---+-+
|  Debian GNU/Linux - "Microsoft *does* have a year 2000 problem - |
|  and we're it!" (paraphrased from IRC)   |
\--/

Re: layout of web pages

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Jules> --On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 2:47 am -0300 "Nicolás Lichtmaier"
 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 >> But that is completelly subjective (is that an English word?).

 Jules> Of course, I do use omit tags myself -  Maybe we need a
 Jules> policy on this.  Maybe it doesn't matter :-)

No, I don't think we should have policy for this (just like we
 don't have policy for C styles (indentation, opening bracket on a
 line by itself, etc). As long as the document validates (perhaps with
 the strict DTD), it should be OK. I was merely commenting on the
 remark that there is no reason to explicitly use the end tag for 
 -- that is a subjective decision, and to people who do use end tags,
 there are reasons to do so ;-)

manoj
--
 If it's working, the diagnostics say it's fine. If it's not working,
 the diagnostics say it's fine. A proposed addition to rules for
 realtime programming
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Re: layout of web pages

[James A. Treacy]

On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 01:40:43PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> --On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 10:40 am +0200 "Dirk Niemeyer"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> 
> > We should also consider using "height=xxx" and "width=xxx" for the IMG
> > tag 
> > as this makes rendering easier for the browsers. I always sit in front
> > of 
> > an empty display for a while and the browser tells me it is loading x kb
> > of 
> > this and y kb of that and finally everything pops up.
> > 
> > Using the additional info on IMG the text comes first and then the
> > graphics 
> > can come in.
> > 
> 
> Hmm... you're right.
> 
> WML can do this automatically, in fact, IIRC.  Presumably, it doesn't for us
> since the IMG files don't exist when the wml is run.
> 
This has been corrected. I didn't bother regenerating all the pages so it
will take a while before every page is updated.

Jay Treacy

ports/arm/softwaremap.wml: non-existent URL used

[James A. Treacy]

ports/arm/softwaremap.wml uses the URL netwinder.html
which doesn't exist.

It also uses http://www.netwinder.org/devel/notes/index.html
which can only be accessed by registered developers.

Jay Treacy

Re: layout of web pages

[Nicolás Lichtmaier]

> The specific problem with the  tags is that many people misunderstand
> them, and many browsers appear to interpret  tags the way that people
> expect them to work (i.e. put some space here) rather than the way they
> should work.

 It's amazing to see the Big Companies, with their Big Bucks, ignoring the
standards... why do they do that? The HTML their tools create is really
*awful*.

> For this reason, I recommend the paired form, since that is completely
> clear.

 It's clear to me, I don't need to make it clear to somebody who doesn't
know HTML.
 And if you write:

. dd
dd.
ddd
ddd. d.

 It's clear what the 's are and you are also handling the problem of
broken browsers (`' == `*2').

> 
> Of course, I do use omit tags myself - I almost always omit  on short
> lists, and  in tables.  Maybe we need a policy on this.  Maybe it
> doesn't matter :-)

 It doesn't =).

Re: layout of web pages

[Craig Small]

[Nicol_s Lichtmaier] wrote:
> > Exactly.  In fact, Netscape's handling of heading and paragraphs is
> > atrocious.  Maybe it inherited the foolishness from Mosaic - I can't
> > remember.  The point, anyway, is that  should be thought of as 'put space
> > here'.
> > 
> > Personally, I think we should aim for properly paired ... tags in
> > pages we produce.  Mine do, mostly.
> 
>  There's absolutelly no reason for doing so. You aren't following the
> stamdard more closely with that.
> 
>  What should only be needed is to use  at the start of paragraphs and not
> at the end, as many people do.

Why not read the HTML 4.0 spec? It says:

9.3.1 Paragraphs: the P element

 
 



 Start tag: required, End tag: optional

So it's optional.  I don't use them  myself as it is not recommended
by many of the web designers here or in fact in any of the books I've 
read. 

I must say though that the css stuff is most excellent.

 - Craig
-- 
Craig Small VK2XLZ, PGP: AD 8D D8 63 6E BF C3 C7  47 41 B1 A2 1F 46 EC 90
|@work: [EMAIL PROTECTED],@play: [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|@home: [EMAIL PROTECTED],   @debian:[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|@web: http://www.triode.net.au/~csmall   @irc:seeS @icw:5723597| 

Re: layout of web pages

[Jules Bean]

--On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 8:11 am +1000 "Craig Small"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

> 
>  Start tag: required, End tag: optional
> 
> So it's optional.  I don't use them  myself as it is not recommended
> by many of the web designers here or in fact in any of the books I've 
> read. 

We already agreed that the end tag is optional.  Please see my previous post
explaining my (subjective) reasons not to use .

And, with respect, I take what most web designers say with a big pinch of
salt.  I know a lot of web designers (I work with them often) and what they
are concerned with is how to acheive graphical and page layout perfectness
in IE 4 and or Netscape 4.  

Whilst this is a sensible goal in their target market (which, in the case of
most commercial sites is overwhelmingly IE4 dominated), it is not sensible
for us.  Apart from the fact that I, and possibly some others here, are
programmers who believe in doing things 'right' for their own sake, it is
also worth noting that we have a much wider audience in terms of browsers -
including, for example, mozilla, lynx, and a variety of browsers which are
currently nascent.

Therefore, we should respect the DTD, not the apparent behaviour of
Netscape.

Jules

/+---+-\
|  Jelibean aka  | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  6 Evelyn Rd|
|  Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | [EMAIL PROTECTED]|  TW9 2TF *UK*   |
++---+-+
|  Debian GNU/Linux - "Microsoft *does* have a year 2000 problem - |
|  and we're it!" (paraphrased from IRC)   |
\--/